Unchecked and Unbalanced: A Constitution Day Look At the Flaccid Case Against Impeachment

[omega minimo]

The anti-impeachment rationale has more simplistic fervor than common sense: gaming the future with magical thinking that the flood levels of unitary power can rise and rise and there will still be a little pocket of air left to breathe in the upside-down ship of state ... until ... until a fantasy of Someday when enough Democratic clout is acquired to do something. Until then ...



The precious counting-of-the-votes ahead of time predicts an imaginary outcome. This self-fulfilling negative prophecy reassures those determined to fail that there's no need for action -- including those in Congress whose sworn duty it is to uphold and protect the Constitution. They may be free to wimp out, but they are not absolved of their complicity with the continuing escapades of this administration.



The stubborn insistence that "impeachment without conviction won't do anything" is more of the same self-fulfilling soothsaying-- no one knows what impeachment (indictment in the House of Representatives) and the subsequent hearings (potentially leading to trial in the Senate) will accomplish. Predicting that "nothing" will happen is a disconnect from reality and from history. Unanticipated testimony in the Watergate hearings pulled the thread that unraveled Nixon's presidency. "Impeachment without conviction" doesn't absolve this administration -- allowing it continue absolves this administration. Not facing the consequences of inaction absolves this administration.



The specious argument over "investigations first" ignores all the documentation, investigations and hearings that already exist. The pretense is that nothing is known, that investigations would start from scratch and there's "not enough time." However, the case has been prepared and the White House even helped, by announcing in the media what they were doing and that nothing -- including the rule of law -- could stop them.



The ill logic that refusing to uphold the rule of law and defend the Constitution somehow will serve Democrats -- gain them more votes, more seats, more power -- is pathetically misguided. In the name of building Democratic power, the Democratic leaders and most Congress members allow the violations to continue. Refusing to hold this administration accountable is a tragic decision that will backfire -- creating more cynicism and apathy, further alienating the millions of youth who refuse to vote at all. All that on top of the damage done to the nation and the world as this administration surges ahead unchecked, unbalanced.



The weakest rationalizations dismiss the call for impeachment as acting "on principle" and "only to make a point." Too many have grown up with the flippant assurance of wearing Brand America without ever learning the principles or understanding the point. Even some members of Congress don't know the Constitution or understand how this system of government is intended to work.



It's not working now. Cynical soothsaying and consultant conjuring is working only to cast a spell of lethargy and denial. Reading the entrails of the eviscerated works of the Founders might do the trick-- if anyone has the guts to face the gore, along with the lost blood and treasure, the lost standing in the world, the lost "principle" this nation once stood for.

[annabanana]

1. It is a sad state of affairs.

I am grateful that we still have fairly easy access to copies of the Constitution, so as to study what we've lost.

[omega minimo]

2. If we don't give up, we haven't

lost

:thumbsup:


If we give up before we try, we haven't

leadership

:thumbsdown:

[porphyrian]

3. You can say that again, not that the right people will listen. - n/t

[omega minimo]

4. Hoist on their own flaccid petard

:evilgrin:



edit: btw, P, :hi: check out this exchange:

omega minimo
126. So aside from semantic arguments, where does accountability come into play?


Response to Reply #126
130. Dunno

Not sure we CAN enforce "accountability". But a failed impeachment won't do anything to enforce accountability.





:eyes:

[porphyrian]

5. What do they think making no effort to impeach will do?

I guess words like "accountability," "precedent" and "complicity" have become archaic in our lifetime.

*sigh*

[omega minimo]

6. Impeachment is the mechanism for "enforcing accountability" !!!!!!!!!!!!

:crazy:

It's the magical thinking, predicting what "enforce" MUST mean happens, that's the problem here.





Why do people think it's okay to do nothing? Any good answers show up here -- ever?

[porphyrian]

7. I'm at a loss myself.

All I know is that I wouldn't be able to live with myself if I could have done something to stop this insanity, yet didn't. I suppose some people have less of a conscience (or better denial skills).

[unblock]

8. there's only one argument against impeachment, and it trumps all

namely that the democrats in power see and easy and obvious path to more power by NOT impeaching.

do nothing and let the wave of anti-bushism hit the polls in 2008 and it's a clean sweep.

what would they gain in exchange for the risk of screwing up a nearly sure thing?



now, i'm not saying this is anything to be proud of. in fact, it's downright cynical and an abdication of power and a dereliction of statesmanship. all i'm saying is that this is the only argument that matters to the people who are in a position to actually impeach.

[H2O Man]

9. I suppose that

depends on how one defines "power," as well as what one's goals are. If honoring the Constitution and the rule of law are the goal, it's time to impeach. If gaining access to the office that allows for one to commit the same type of violations against the Constitution and rule of law are the power one seeks, it may be important to ignore the glaring need to impreach.

[Senator]

10. In other words, they've become "loyal bushies."

They choose to be the regime's firewall against accountability -- trading the remnants of our freedom for the mirage of their own political security.

There is no strategery too craven or perverse for the beltway LieberDems.

---

[unblock]

11. i don't know if i'd go that far. "time impeaches" might be a better sumation.

personally i'd love an impeachment, and would love to see shrub and dickless out way before january 20, 2009. if nothing else, republicans need to be taught that they can't get away with it. merely losing the next election is WAY too good for them. hell, mere impeachment is way too good for them, they need a nice long prison stay.

but politics is (usually) largely about power, and the folks in washington need to feel pressure that NOT impeaching is dangerous for them. that doesn't make them "loyal bushies" by any stretch.

[Senator]

12. And yet, you just did go that far.

It being about politics as usual and what "the folks in Washington need" is exactly what makes them "loyal bushies."

When what's "dangerous for them" is put above what's dangerous for the nation -- let alone the troops in the field and the torture victims in the dungeons -- they reach nothing less than bushcheneyism. (And sadly, when it comes to the torture victims, nothing less than war criminality.)

There really is no fence to sit on here.

--

[unblock]

18. there is room for huge differences between "loyal bushies" and not impeaching

politics is vastly more complicated than, say, nader supposed it to be in 2000.

[omega minimo]

22. Those millions of voters believe there is one corporate party with two wings

Senator is pointing out that your "vast" gray area is really not all that large.

If the abuse of power is unchecked, if the same unchecked power is amassed by the "opposition" that doesn't oppose, what does that say about the difference b/w them?


"The ill logic that refusing to uphold the rule of law and defend the Constitution somehow will serve Democrats -- gain them more votes, more seats, more power -- is pathetically misguided. In the name of building Democratic power, the Democratic leaders and most Congress members allow the violations to continue. Refusing to hold this administration accountable is a tragic decision that will backfire -- creating more cynicism and apathy, further alienating the millions of youth who refuse to vote at all. All that on top of the damage done to the nation and the world as this administration surges ahead unchecked, unbalanced."

[Senator]

31. No, there really isn't

And if you want to claim it is more complicated than "evil flourishing while good men do nothing," you'll have to describe exactly how.

--

[omega minimo]

14. "Time impeaches"? No, sorry. That's why the responsibility rests with those IN THE PRESENT

It doesn't get sloughed off into the future, onto someone else's shoulders.


"...if nothing else, republicans need to be taught that they can't get away with it."

Ah, but ya see, they have learned that they CAN "get away with it" and not impeaching perpetuates that, right?

Did "time impeach" Ronald Reagan for Iran/Contra? No, and history has been rewritten, with the same old bad guys reappearing in this administration...





"... merely losing the next election is WAY too good for them."

There's no guarantee about the next election. Assuming "anti-Bushism" will take care of everything is naive.



H2O Man has boiled it down as clearly and concisely as it can possibly get.

H2O Man
9. I suppose that depends on how one defines "power," as well as what one's goals are.
If honoring the Constitution and the rule of law are the goal, it's time to impeach.
If gaining access to the office that allows for one to commit the same type of violations against the Constitution and rule of law are the power one seeks, it may be important to ignore the glaring need to impeach."



Senator nails it too:


Senator
Response to Reply #8
10. They choose to be the regime's firewall against accountability -- trading the remnants of our freedom for the mirage of their own political security."







If you don't reread the OP with an eye toward questioning the magical assumptions of too many Democrats, then just consider this:

"... trading the remnants of our freedom for the mirage of their own political security."

"... trading the remnants of our freedom for the mirage of their own political security."

"... trading the remnants of our freedom for the mirage of their own political security."

"... trading the remnants of our freedom for the mirage of their own political security."

"... trading the remnants of our freedom for the mirage of their own political security."

"... trading the remnants of our freedom for the mirage of their own political security."

"... trading the remnants of our freedom for the mirage of their own political security."

[WilliamPitt]

20. "There is no strategery too craven or perverse for the beltway LieberDems."

And thank God for that.

One needs to be craven and perverse, it seems, to do little stupid worthless piece of shit things like take more of the Senate, and the White House, so they can do some other worthless useless stupid Bushie shit things like repair the Supreme Court, so the Supreme Court can begin repairing the Constitution.

Ya know. Stupid shit like that.

[omega minimo]

23. And why not impeach? Are you assuming that impeachment prevents them from doing those things?

[WilliamPitt]

25. I was not responding to your post, o.m.

Different context.

I have to let your question cook a while. I can't look at this in a binary fashion. Both ideas and arguments have merit.

[omega minimo]

27. OIC. I took Senator's context from his previous line:

"They choose to be the regime's firewall against accountability -- trading the remnants of our freedom for the mirage of their own political security.

There is no strategery too craven or perverse for the beltway LieberDems."




:hi:

[WilliamPitt]

30. You are correct. I apologize.

I was focused in on the "LieberDems" thing. Duly corrected.

:toast:

[omega minimo]

36. IC

I see you picked up :wow: "flaccid" and ran with it..............




:bounce::bounce:

[Senator]

32. Sorry, but is this post still operative?

In light of the exchange with O.M. above?

--

[omega minimo]

13. No, it doesn't, becuz as you say, it's "a NEARLY sure thing."

"... do nothing and let the wave of anti-bushism hit the polls in 2008 and it's a clean sweep."


It's a gamble, "gaming the future" the OP called it.

I'm glad you checked in here, yet your answer reinforces the "magical thinking" aspect the OP questions.

If you would open your mind to possibilities, to the danger of faith-based strategery based on questionable assumptions that are "downright cynical" and pander to "an abdication of power and a dereliction of statesmanship" -- if you acknowledge the "nearly" you put before "sure thing"....

If you've opened your mind and reread the OP and even considered the impact of all the non-voters mentioned, whose apathy and attitudes about a corporate party with two wings are CONFIRMED by the failure to impeach ...


... then ask yourself again about the risks, the gain, the screwing up and what is in exchange here. That's what the OP is about.

It still seems that those who think this sort of cyncicism, abdication and dereliction are acceptable are people who don't really understand the system or what is at stake.

[unblock]

17. my mind is not remotely closed. all i'm doing is explaining the thinking of the dems in congress

i'm not saying it's what i would do or what i would like to see.

[omega minimo]

19. Didn't mean that it was. Invited you to reconsider the assumptions that support the inaction

What would you do and what would you like to see?

:hi:

[unblock]

21. i would love to see impeachment and more statesmen rather than politicians

you know, people doing what's right rather than what they figure gets them re-elected, that sort of thing.

but it's a bit of a sad truism that people who put the seeking of power ahead of principle usually are the ones who wind up with the power. it isn't always true, but it too often is.

[RangerRK]

15. If they are worried about Iran- why don't they Impeach?

The Corporatist wing of the Democratic Party and their enablers have been stalling too long. They are hoping to distract us with the election, then have a Democratic President carry the torch to Iran. We must stop this. Several Democratic Candidates have already stated their support of an assault on Iran. Many Democratic congressmen are lending support to the idea, despite all facts stating that Iran is not a threat.

[omega minimo]

16. no

"... then have a Democratic President carry the torch to Iran."


Lieberman is not a Democrat.

[mmonk]

24. The constitution is under attack.

[jpgray]

26. Your history is wrong there. Nixon's admin fell apart during regular ol' -investigation-

Not impeachment hearings. The Saturday Night Massacre and most of the damning events all occurred before articles were voted on. SCOTUS ruled that executive privilege was invalid concerning the tapes as well before the impeachment articles were voted on. Impeaching without the groundwork of something like the Watergate comittee and without the votes is a recipe for disaster. It's true that the "smoking gun" was unveiled after the impeachment inquiry started, but comparing the two situations just isn't honest. Only ten representatives voted against the articles of impeachment to begin with. How would our House battle look?

edited: Made a small mistake. But I caught it! :P

[omega minimo]

28. No, it's not. You're misrepresenting.

"Predicting that "nothing" will happen is a disconnect from reality and from history. Unanticipated testimony in the Watergate hearings pulled the thread that unraveled Nixon's presidency."


Perhaps you misread.






"Impeaching without the groundwork of something like the Watergate comittee and without the votes is a recipe for disaster."



from the OP:

The specious argument over "investigations first" ignores all the documentation, investigations and hearings that already exist. The pretense is that nothing is known, that investigations would start from scratch and there's "not enough time." However, the case has been prepared and the White House even helped, by announcing in the media what they were doing and that nothing -- including the rule of law -- could stop them.

[jpgray]

29. The point is we don't have anything like the groundwork that preceded Nixon's impeachment articles

And Nixon's presidency was unraveled wholly by regular vanilla investigations. Only after those investigations revealed palpable evidence (in th eyes of the media and the public) was impeachment viable. If your goal is truly to impeach Bush, shouldn't you be advocating for:

-SCOTUS ruling on executive privilege vis-a-vis congressional inquiry, soon, now, yesterday

-Active pressure on reluctant and skittish Dems to back up the people doing the heavy lifting and sticking out their necks: Conyers, Leahy, Waxman, etc.

A failed impeachment will -exonerate- this asshole. The Republicans can point to it and say "Look! Bush was found not guilty. Guy did nothing wrong." It jeopardizes and "politicizes" in that hated media way all current investigations, which have all the clout they need to get the job done. Why impeachment before completed investigation?

[mmonk]

34. I have a whole book put together by Conyers

and his investigations while in the minority. I don't remember that with Nixon. So that's not true.

[omega minimo]

35. You're repeating arguments that the OP refutes

"The point is we don't have anything like the groundwork that preceded Nixon's impeachment articles"

mmonk is right. that's not true.


"A failed impeachment will -exonerate- this asshole. The Republicans can point to it and say "Look! Bush was found not guilty. Guy did nothing wrong."

This goes right back to the ill logic and the soothsaying the OP challenges. You think being impeached changes nothing? That there are no repercussions from that? That doesn't even make sense. History will show.

And you've decided ahead of time that impeachment will "fail." Basing Democratic actions on predicting how the Repukes will distort them is a major part of the problem -- and contributes to the flaccidity of "reluctant and skittish Dems."

"It jeopardizes and "politicizes" in that hated media way all current investigations..."

No, it doesn't.

"Why impeachment before completed investigation?"

Now you've talked yourself in a circle.



Nothing new here. Nothing that changes the OP's assertion that those determined to fail won't even try.`



"In the long run men hit only what they aim at." -- Henry David Thoreau

[Perry Logan]

33. Not enough votes. Not enough time. 'Nough said.